Slater and Gordon considering seeking permission to appeal following today's judgment in Dieselgate trial

High Court's key Dieselgate findings

The Court found that certain Mercedes and Peugeot/Citroën vehicles contained prohibited defeat devices, while ruling that a number of other disputed technologies did not breach emissions regulations.

What are diesel defeat devices?

At the centre of the litigation are allegations that vehicle manufacturers installed software within diesel vehicles' emissions control systems that reduced the effectiveness of nitrogen oxide (NOx) controls during normal driving conditions.

Claimants argued that these systems effectively reduced emissions controls outside of official testing environments, resulting in higher real-world emissions than would be expected from vehicles marketed as meeting European emissions standards.

The trial examined 20 representative vehicles manufactured by five lead manufacturers.

How the UK Dieselgate judgment differs from EU decisions

One of the most significant aspects of today's judgment is the court's decision not to follow several key decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union when interpreting emissions regulations.

As a result, the legal position in Great Britain now differs from that adopted across much of Europe, where courts have generally taken a broader view of what constitutes a prohibited defeat device.

What happens next in the Dieselgate litigation?

Today's ruling represents an important milestone in the wider Dieselgate litigation, but it does not bring the matter to an end.

The proceedings focused on five lead manufacturers selected to help determine key legal issues across the broader litigation involving multiple automotive groups. The outcome is expected to influence claims against a number of other manufacturers, including:

• Vauxhall/Opel
• Volkswagen/Porsche
• Jaguar Land Rover
• BMW
• FCA/Suzuki
• Volvo
• Hyundai-Kia
• Toyota
• Mazda

Slater and Gordon is now reviewing the judgment in detail and considering the implications for affected motorists.

Elizabeth Comley, Chief Operating Officer and Head of Collective Actions at Slater and Gordon, said:

"Although the Court has recognised that certain vehicles contain prohibited defeat devices, aspects of the judgment raise significant questions about how emissions regulations should be interpreted in Great Britain and how those interpretations compare with established legal positions in Europe.

"Consumers rightly expect the vehicles they purchase to comply with environmental standards and regulatory requirements. Where there are questions over whether that has happened, motorists deserve clarity and accountability.

"We believe there are compelling grounds for appeal and we are carefully considering next steps."

Slater and Gordon will continue to review the judgment and provide updates to affected clients as further information becomes available.